Running 2011-12 College Basketball thread

Yes, I can't wait until about 2016 in football when the Big East championship game is San Diego St. vs. Boise St.; The ACC championship game is Pitt vs. Syracuse; the Big 12 championship game is West Virginia vs. Louisville; The SEC championship game is Missouri vs. Texas A&M; The Big Ten champion is Nebraska and the Pac 12 championship game is Utah vs. Colorado.....


At some point in the next five years, people at all of these schools and conferences will wake up and say "what the fuck have we done?"

 

That 15-18 record makes it a lock to play for a 16 seed. It could certainly win that first game, but you'd have a hell of a time getting people to take a punt on its chances against a No. 1.

 

I'm of the belief that conference champs should not ever have to "play-in" but I know not everyone feels that way.

My thing is - make the last at-large teams "play-in" - and reward conference champs, even if it is with a 16 seed, by letting them go to the tournament Thursday or Friday with everyone else.

 

Is Texas in?

 

Right there with you. Those small-conference champs have done what was asked of them: winning their conference tournament. Give them their day in the sun — playing a No. 1 in the tournament proper at a real host site — for doing so and let the 13-loss high-majors who didn't win their conference tournament jump through extra hoops.

 

Boise State and SDSU will be in the same Big East Division. Utah and Colorado are in the same Pac-12 division. So they cannot meet in the championship game. Otherwise, feel free to continue your rant against the changing face of American sports.

Good thing the Internet wasn't around in 1950s. We'd have heard how moving the St.Louis Browns, Boston Braves, both New York City NL teams and the Philadelphia A's was ruining baseball.

Leagues aren't static. The Pac-10 was better than the Pac-8, thanks to the Arizona schools. In time the Pac-12 will be better than the Pac-10.

And there are probably more great college basketball players than at any time in history, albeit some who have exchanged fundamentals for amazing athleticism. Also, the talent is far more spread out, in part because there are now 300-plus Division I teams, and the shot clock has somewhat eliminated the plodding, set offenses in place of a more attacking, high-risk approach that leads to more turnovers, but more exciting games.

 

Christ, all you need is an Acme anvil and this is a Roadrunner cartoon.

 

OK Dickhead - I can't wait until S.D. State plays Navy in the Big East championship game and Texas plays Utah in the Pac 12 championship game.

And if you are arguing that the "Big East" is better and makes more sense with Boise, SD State and SMU than Syracuse, WVU and Pitt, then I can't help you.

And no, there aren't more great college basketball players than at any time before and the reason is simple - they all leave school before they can become truly great.

 

Zag, I agree with you about conference champs in the tournament. I'd argue that although there are indeed few great players in college ball, the median level of ability has risen.

 

The purpose of the NCAA tournament is to determine a national champion and make a shitton of money. It's not to make sure the little guys get their time on the swing set. This argument always comes up, and I never get it. Are we actually saying that Western Kentucky, at 15-18, should get a better path to the tournament than Seton Hall or Xavier because they managed to put together a few wins at the end (while not having to play MTSU, the Sun Belt's runaway best team)? Hell, the last teams to get in the tournament will have done what was asked of them -- distinguish themselves as one of the better teams in the country through their resume, even if that doesn't mean as much this season.

 

I think the level of athleticism is much greater today than it was 30 years ago. I think that there are more Division-I level athletes and players than there ever was.

I think the level of play has dropped off in the past 10 to 15 years because the best talents never mature into truly great players.

 

Then don't have automatic bids for conference champions at all - which, by the way, I am OK with that and think there are way too many teams in the "national championship" tournament.

That being said - if you are going to let them in, let them in all the way.

And what exactly has Seton Hall or Xavier or any of these "bubble" teams done to deserve a spot in the "playoffs" anyway?